“Christianity is the white man’s religion.” That was Malcolm X’s verdict, and though he meant it to be final, a generation of black Christian leaders decided to treat it as provisional. In 1969, a thirty-one-year-old theologian named James H. Cone published “Black Theology & Black Power,” a short, astringent book that Wright would use as a blueprint for Trinity. Cone proposed a reciprocal arrangement: just as the Black Power movement could find redemption in the Church, so the Church -- dominated and distorted by generations of white men -- could find redemption in the Black Power movement. He wrote that there was “a need for a theology whose sole purpose is to emancipate the gospel from its ‘whiteness’ so that blacks may be capable of making an honest self-affirmation through Jesus Christ.” And he argued that, since African-American suffering was such a powerful metaphor for the suffering of Christ, color-blind Christianity was a contradiction in terms. “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen,” he wrote. “God has chosen black people!”

Like many brash-sounding manifestos of the era, this one came with fine-print qualifications. Throughout the book, Cone was careful to explain that a black-centered Church need not be a black-separatist Church. And even the simplest phrases -- “black people,” for instance -- turned out to be slippery. It wasn’t about being “physically black,” he wrote. “To be black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are.” In his view, blackness was as radically inclusive as Christianity itself, and just as demanding.

Fox, like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Washington Times, is a conservative counterestablishment institution designed to ape the functions of the real thing, doing double duty by firing up the troops with custom-crafted ideological spin, "analysis" and phony scholarship while confusing the rest of the world with nonsense disguised as news.

The question of Fox's malevolence is settled. What remains is a disagreement among liberals over an appropriate response. Some argue that liberals ought to refuse to participate at all because it is impossible to do so without playing by Fox's fixed rules. But by sitting it out, the counterargument goes, they are shutting themselves off from cable's largest audience, and inviting the accusation of fear and wimpiness.

As John Edwards explained when announcing his withdrawal from a Fox debate, "There's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending to be objective." He also noted that he had appeared on the network more than 30 times. Edwards is right. The proper response to a Fox attack disguised as a question is, "Well, Brit, I appeared on this biased show of yours to set your viewers straight about the BS you and your fellow right-wingers have been handing them. Now here's the truth..."

John McCain has been insisting that his 100 years in Iraq comment is being taken out of context.  That in fact what he meant is that American troops can stay in Iraq for fifty or 100 years if American troops are no longer being attacked.  This assertion leads to a whole new set of questions that reflect McCain's lack of understanding of what is going on inside Iraq.

First of all, how exactly does Senator McCain envision getting to a point where there are no American casualties in Iraq?  The idea of a large American troop presence in Iraq that does not draw any fire is farfetched.  What we have in Iraq today is some odd and complicated mix of numerous sectarian conflicts with Americans stuck in the middle.  This isn’t Korea.  There will be no armistice or Demilitarized Zone.  Senator McCain has not laid out any kind of a roadmap or strategy for how we get to this idealized scenario where American forces are no longer being fired upon.

Second, how long does he think it will take to get to this end state that he envisions?  Will it take 10 years?  Will it take 20?  30?  When under his plan do American troops stop taking casualties?  It would be good to know.

Finally, there is the question of a permanent presence in Iraq and the strategic costs to the United States.  One of the Bush Administration’s premises for the war in Iraq, was the idea that we needed to eliminate Al Qaeda.  But one of the major inspirations for Al Qaeda, was the American presence in Saudi Arabia.  In a similar way, creating a large permanent troop presence in Iraq would act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and draw anger and suspicion from all over the Arab World.

Thirty years ago, his brilliant screenplay for the movie "Network" was a satire. Today it seems almost prophetic. News as a profit center. Infotainment masquerading as news. An anchor ranting on the air. What seemed shocking and outlandish back then is now commonplace. Somehow it's not hard to envision Bill O'Reilly as the heir of fictional anchor Howard Beale, who told his audience, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Fox's critics would like to believe that its days of dominance are numbered, pointing to an aging audience and the lagging performance of Fox News online. But that's wishful thinking, at least in the short term. Fox has a leg up in the cable TV news game because it rewrote the rules. The other channels have stolen parts of its playbook, but they lack the coherent game plan that keeps Fox in front.